Safety in numbers?
My home base of Turweston seems to operate extremely well with a staff of two doing everything from ATC, to moving aircraft, to refuelling. Cranfield appears unable to operate at all without an army of Air Traffic Controllers, and has recently been closed more often than it is open. I cannot see that they are in the slightest bit safer when they are operating than Turweston.
If they do not want to be a proper airfield, and heaven knows they give visitors little enough reason to want to go there, should they be entitled to a volume of airspace we call an Air Traffic Zone? Stephen Coles, Wavendon